7 - Atoms & QM
One of the more ambiguous concepts of modern day Physics is the particle wave duality of matter. Particles are treated as waves under certain conditions and solid objects in others. The basic dilemma is often illustrated by resorting to the double slit experiment involving electrons. If electrons are fired through a double slit arrangement as shown in Fig 7.2, the probability of detecting electrons on the back plane would show a pattern that is consistent with interference effects that one observes with waves. Fig 7.2. The double slit experiment with electrons. What is even more surprising is that if the beam intensity is reduced to such an extent that only single electrons go through the slits at any one time the same intensity pattern will appear when a large number of hits are recorded. In other words, even when a single electron goes through the slits it behaves as if it was going through both slits and interfering with itself. The dilemma then is that if the electrons are to be viewed as particles confined to a small region of space they can only go through one slit or the other but not both. To resolve this dilemma Physics has come up with the notion that the electrons consist of some sort of amorphous extension in space, as described by the wave function, which moves through both slits and creates the interference pattern. And that when we come to detect the electrons using our instruments this amorphous 'substance' somehow collapses into the localized particle. A strange notion indeed! It leads to many conceptual difficulties and paradoxes. For example, how does the wave function know when to collapse? The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes that the wave function collapses upon observation. However the wave function doesn't know that a person is going to be reading a detector used in a measurement when it decides to collapse at the detector. We do not think it is that clever. What criterion should we use for the collapse of the wave function? One might suppose that it collapses when it, or some aspect of it, encounters a 'solid' object such as a detector, but if that is so why does it not collapse when it encounters the object containing the slits? As discussed above, we think there might be a more common sense interpretation of these events. Namely that the interference effects are not to be attributed to the electrons themselves but to the wave nature of the medium. The above example is to a large extent academic because it would not be practical to carry out this experiment. There are however other experiments that have been carried out that demonstrate this principle. One common example is the scattering of electrons by a crystal, such as occurs in an electron microscope. There the scattering of electrons, or diffraction pattern, definitely displays the interference effects normally associated with waves. However we believe that it is not necessary to attribute the wave properties to the electrons but rather to the 4D aetheric waves that surround the atoms within the crystal. The patterns of aetheric vibration will be modified by the presence of the crystalline atoms. The regular periodicity of these atoms will introduce periodic variations in the 4D standing wave patterns inside and near the crystal. Therefore, an electron fired into the crystal would not only be affected by the Coulomb forces of the atoms but also by the 4D wave patterns. It is conceivable that the diffraction patterns we observe in the scattered electrons are in fact due to the influence of the aetheric vibration patterns on the electrons as they pass through the crystal. The influence being such as to somehow produce an effect that is consistent with the observed relationship of the wavelength being proportional to the momentum of the incoming electrons. Similar logic could be applied to other atomic particles.
[1] Marcus Hollingshead, "The Marcus Device", www.americanantigravity.com [2] Harold Puthoff, “Quantum Fluctuations in Empty Space", www.sumeria.net/free/zpe1.html [3] R.M. Kiehn, "Nanometer Vortexes", www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre85.htm [4] Yu. M. Galaev, “The Measuring of Ether-Drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity within Optical Wave Bands", Spacetime & Substance, Vol 3 (2002), No 5 (15), pp. 207-224 www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm [5] Charles Hinton, “Recognition of the Fourth Dimension", www.eldritchpress.org/chh/hinton.html [6] Website devoted to String Theory, superstringtheory.com [7] Kheper, "Super-membranes", www.kheper.net/cosmos/quantum_physics/branes.html [8] Valerie Hunt, “Electronic evidence of auras, chakras in UCLA study", Brain Mind Bulletin, vol. 3, no.9, March 20, 1978
Go to Top